Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

nashville_brook

(20,958 posts)
Wed May 13, 2015, 02:37 PM May 2015

Progressives just changed the 2016 election narrative by blocking TPP fast-track

Links found in original here --> http://thefloridasqueeze.com/2015/05/13/progressives-just-changed-the-2016-election-narrative-by-blocking-tpp-fast-track/




In a last-minute huddle, Democrats blocked fast-track authority (TPA) for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in the Senate, saying they had concerns about enforcement of protections. This was a big, multifaceted win for progressives. One, Elizabeth Warren’s Klout score just went way up. Two, the TPP now has a good shot of being killed in the House with the momentum that’s been built. And three, the emerging progressive populist agenda has folks wondering if this changes the dynamic for 2016. Will Hillary Clinton respond by siding with Warren, or will she re-launch her Blue Dog brand?

It’s a shame that all this comes as the result of President Obama’s increasingly ugly public spat with the progressive wing of the Democratic party where he’s focused his attention on marginalizing Senator Warren. Yesterday’s vote shows that Warren isn’t the one out in the weeds — it’s the President. The bright side is the party is united like it hasn’t been in quite some time. This is a true values debate, and progressives are leading the charge to advance an emergent populist agenda that aims to patch the holes in our economic system which have led to the greatest wealth inequality since the Gilded Age and robber barons.

The more the President attacks Senator Warren, the more power she accrues. This just feeds the momentum for a new progressive agenda such as Bill de Blasio’s “Progressive Agenda to Combat Income Inequality,” and Bernie Sanders’ “Economic Agenda to Combat Income Inequality.” It’s propelling the progressive brand on the national stage with leaders like Alan Grayson appearing as the reasoned advocate for working Americans. Here’s what Grayson says about TPP:

"Our so-called free trade policies, have been a disaster for the United States since NAFTA was enacted…And the result of that is that we’ve gone from $2 trillion in surplus with our trade to $11 trillion in debt. And we’ve lost five million manufacturing jobs and roughly 15 million other jobs in the last 20 years. So we’ve lost twice: We’ve lost the jobs, and we’ve also gone deeper and deeper into debt."


All this progressive ascendency seems to be making Hillary Clinton nervous. She hasn’t taken a question from a reporter in more than 20 days — approximately the life-span of the TPP dustup. She’s also been busy forming a new Super PAC called “Correct The Record,” to raise money specifically for political research, rapid response and communications in coordination with the campaign. Perhaps TPP is on their project list. More likely though, they’re hoping the deal will die quickly, so Hillary doesn’t have to weigh in either way.

Obama deciding to go personal with Warren seems uncharacteristically ham-handed. In his interview with Yahoo’s Matt Bai, the President took an unmistakeable condescending tone, instead of referring to “Senator Warren,” he comes off sounding paternalistic. He says “Ehhhh-liz-ah-beth,” as if she’s his little sister and can talk to the Presidential hand. It was so bad Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio called it “disrespectful,” and suggested the President wouldn’t refer to a male Senator in that belittling manner. That’s the way it sounded to me too.

Dana Milbank wrote about the personal Obama-drama, asserting that his vindictive manner could be what actually kills the TPP. Milbank observes, “The rhetoric suggests that Obama has given up trying to persuade his fellow Democrats to join him in supporting ‘fast track’ approval…and that he’s lashing out at them in anger.”

Maybe this is all eleventy-dimensional chess. Maybe Obama is allowing the deal to be damned with faint praise. Or, damned with tainted praise, courtesy of every Republican and corporate lobbyist in DC. This is the stuff that GOP dreams are made of. Well, this and the suffering of little children. It’s just impossible to believe Obama would betray his values like this. He’s a “community organizer” who promised to “put on his comfortable shoes” to march with unions on worker protections. Of course, he also downgraded that in his Yahoo interview to a less strenuous “stand with” unions. Sorry guys. These Nikes are comfortable, but they’re not that comfortable. That pinch you feel is the suffering of slave labor in Vietnam, and the loss jobs here at home.

If the party were really bringing their game, the TPP would be the perfect strawman to kickoff the 2016 campaign season. Hillary hasn’t released an economic plan yet, so all this timing is either too perfect, or perfectly disastrous for her campaign, depending on what her economic plan turns out to be. There’s signs she might come around to a progressive agenda. Clinton advisor Joseph E. Stiglitz, the Nobel laureate in economics, just released a scorching report on economic policy. One of the highlights of the report is that trade deals like the TPP are largely to blame for our explosion of wealth inequality. The report calls for “rewriting the rules of our market economy to reduce those inequalities.” One of the pull-quotes in the report reads: “Inequality has been a choice, and it is within our power to reverse it.” That’s the stuff great stump speeches are made of.

If Hillary crafted a progressive Stiglitz-Warren economic policy, and made it the centerpiece of her campaign, she’d easily win over progressives and unite the party. It would be a master stroke of triangulation — the sensible and pragmatic thing to do. It’s the sort of thing you’d expect from a smart politician who recognizes that Elizabeth Warren has just been anointed the de facto leader of the Democratic Party.
85 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Progressives just changed the 2016 election narrative by blocking TPP fast-track (Original Post) nashville_brook May 2015 OP
"President Obama’s increasingly ugly public spat with the progressive wing of the Democratic party" JaneyVee May 2015 #1
that was indeed a crescendo in his escalation of the spat. nashville_brook May 2015 #2
Like what? He said nothing sexist, has a wife 2 daughters, and... JaneyVee May 2015 #6
listen to the recording -- it's completely condescending. meant to be that way. nashville_brook May 2015 #7
But "emotionally involved" isn't what's being lobbed at him... JaneyVee May 2015 #8
he deployed a stereotypically belittling tone that, in this context nashville_brook May 2015 #12
Holy crap. PC police run amok. JaneyVee May 2015 #21
look, I'm offended by it. I'm not offended on anyone's behalf. nashville_brook May 2015 #44
So now saying Elizabeth in a tone = the N word? JaneyVee May 2015 #61
I'm a man and I caught the condescending tone right off. You think we make this shit up? Enthusiast May 2015 #56
Condescending tone doesn't = sexism. JaneyVee May 2015 #62
I believe he was condescending. Chemisse May 2015 #67
Tone conveys meaning. sulphurdunn May 2015 #64
"With all due respect, Bless your heart." Jackpine Radical May 2015 #66
Exactly sulphurdunn May 2015 #69
With all due respect… (nt) Jackpine Radical May 2015 #71
Or, ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #75
PC police? I don't think so ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #74
Good grief, we do not. He struck out in a moment of stress...uncalled for and unlike his usual libdem4life May 2015 #18
Obama or Sherrod? JaneyVee May 2015 #25
Creative change there...some feel the need to Rescue Obama. libdem4life May 2015 #27
From baseless BS allegations? Sure, why not. JaneyVee May 2015 #37
It's my opinion, and last I heard those were allowed here. For myself, I no longer use the libdem4life May 2015 #43
so you call the president by last name and senator by first name? there ya go nt msongs May 2015 #35
I'm not the one claiming it's sexist to do so. JaneyVee May 2015 #36
Paternalism is not sexism...it's acting like a Parent. As I've stated...I don't think it was sexist libdem4life May 2015 #40
But Sherrod claimed Obama was being sexist. JaneyVee May 2015 #41
Oh, I've had no stated opinion on that. But I'd go for Tacky and Illtimed, at best. libdem4life May 2015 #45
i think most people don't even know what that word means. nashville_brook May 2015 #50
that's someone having your back. women know the difference... nashville_brook May 2015 #42
I was going to wait for a female to weigh in on that ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #9
see my comment above. it's most certainly a sexist tactic... nashville_brook May 2015 #17
Okay ... Now care to comment on the tactics directed towards this President? n/t 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #20
Elizabeth Warren has done nothing untoward. nashville_brook May 2015 #23
Yeah ... Okay ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #31
that comment doesn't make any sense. nashville_brook May 2015 #46
Of course it doesn't. n/t 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #65
yes, actually. you don't punch down. you don't resort to marginalizing women by nashville_brook May 2015 #53
That would be you naoya6161 May 2015 #57
He was extremely condescending to a woman who is a US Senator and who as it happens, is RIGHT sabrina 1 May 2015 #84
Sexism is irrelevant. What is relevant is his approach to the people who eridani May 2015 #85
You think he was sexist toward Warren? nt Cali_Democrat May 2015 #16
absolutely -- and it's the kind of debate team tactic that should be totally beneath him. nashville_brook May 2015 #19
What did Obama say that was sexist? nt Cali_Democrat May 2015 #24
Don't bother, apparently it was just a "tone" that... JaneyVee May 2015 #26
That could be it, by golly. They do exist, you know. libdem4life May 2015 #30
Except when that "tone" is directed towards this President ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #68
his whole response to Warren was intended to belittle (in the Matt Bai interview) nashville_brook May 2015 #33
What specifically did he say in the interview that u think was sexist? nt Cali_Democrat May 2015 #38
he used classic sexist tactics to marginalizing speech as "emotional" and not "logical," while nashville_brook May 2015 #47
So it was nothing specific that he said...it was his "tone" that was sexist. nt Cali_Democrat May 2015 #59
And amazingly ... 1StrongBlackMan May 2015 #70
this paragraph Romeo.lima333 May 2015 #3
+1 Go Vols May 2015 #52
Wow!! This has major Wellstone ruled May 2015 #4
the narrative changed so quickly yesterday you could feel the whoosh nashville_brook May 2015 #5
Lot's of I.O.U.'s were called on this baby. Wellstone ruled May 2015 #13
i'm actually surprised at the WH response to the vote nashville_brook May 2015 #22
Appears the White House and the McTurtle Wellstone ruled May 2015 #63
Fuck a bunch of Third Way dingdongs. Enthusiast May 2015 #58
Not so fast! It's going back to the Senate for another try. leftofcool May 2015 #10
doesn't matter. it's going to pass the senate eventually, nashville_brook May 2015 #14
They'll add a couple of sweetners and enough Dems will support it because of that. Hoyt May 2015 #29
Exactly! Progressive ranting and gnashing of teeth did absolutely nothing! leftofcool May 2015 #32
I was just adding a link to your OP. Good find. Hoyt May 2015 #34
won't pass the house. it'll get out of the Senate, b/c that what the Senate does... nashville_brook May 2015 #39
Repukes control the house. It will pass. leftofcool May 2015 #77
Wouldn't a bunch of infrastructure projects put jobs here even in Ohio? nt Mojorabbit May 2015 #82
Yes, but that's a different matter. I'm all for it. Would prefer to see both. Hoyt May 2015 #83
From what I've read, John Poet May 2015 #15
Absolutely. Paternalistic is the word for his unhinged and reactionary response to the push-back libdem4life May 2015 #11
i believe that wind is squarely at our backs now. nashville_brook May 2015 #49
Bernie flies in on the same wind because, as used to be said about Bill C, Bernie has a way of libdem4life May 2015 #51
Don't worry, Mrs. Nafta will save us all. bigwillq May 2015 #28
i know, right :) nashville_brook May 2015 #48
Hillary should run as Hillary BrotherIvan May 2015 #54
Repeatedly lying to the electorate has consequences. Enthusiast May 2015 #55
It appears to be un-blocked ( or about to be). So much for our 15 minute revolution (MSM-wise). Ford_Prefect May 2015 #60
One has to wonder, except for those who were always against it, if those Democrats who voted to still_one May 2015 #76
I'm not so sure about this. zentrum May 2015 #72
Well if someone called "thefloridasqueeze" thinks so.... MaggieD May 2015 #73
And 543,000 other news stories of course (LOL) DirkGently May 2015 #79
Oh BS. MaggieD May 2015 #80
Well it is leading the news and everything. DirkGently May 2015 #81
I've never seen Obama like this. DirkGently May 2015 #78
 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
1. "President Obama’s increasingly ugly public spat with the progressive wing of the Democratic party"
Wed May 13, 2015, 02:40 PM
May 2015

PROGRESSIVES CALLED HIM A SEXIST.

nashville_brook

(20,958 posts)
2. that was indeed a crescendo in his escalation of the spat.
Wed May 13, 2015, 02:43 PM
May 2015

so disappointing he spoke to Warren like that -- it's beneath him.

 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
6. Like what? He said nothing sexist, has a wife 2 daughters, and...
Wed May 13, 2015, 02:57 PM
May 2015

So called progressives are going to scrape the bottom of the barrel?

nashville_brook

(20,958 posts)
7. listen to the recording -- it's completely condescending. meant to be that way.
Wed May 13, 2015, 02:59 PM
May 2015

it's an unforced error on his part. he didn't need to get that emotionally involved.

the tone is just like in debate club when the guys know you're winning and they lose their composure. sometimes they reach for a belittling tone if they think it somehow strengthens their position (to sound "strong&quot when it does the opposite.

 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
8. But "emotionally involved" isn't what's being lobbed at him...
Wed May 13, 2015, 03:01 PM
May 2015

Accusations of sexism are, which is beyond ridiculous. Progressives despise him and once again jumped the shark.

nashville_brook

(20,958 posts)
12. he deployed a stereotypically belittling tone that, in this context
Wed May 13, 2015, 03:05 PM
May 2015

was meant to resonate with "the big strong" dudes in the Dem Party who don't want to be seen as "emotional" and "illogical." it's a sexist tactic -- to marginalize a woman based on lack of strength, emotionality and irrationality.

nashville_brook

(20,958 posts)
44. look, I'm offended by it. I'm not offended on anyone's behalf.
Wed May 13, 2015, 03:56 PM
May 2015

there's nothing PC about it.

this is like saying to a person of color that they need to lighten up about the n-word. seriously.

Chemisse

(30,803 posts)
67. I believe he was condescending.
Wed May 13, 2015, 05:35 PM
May 2015

But I also think he is condescending to both genders when he has his dander up.

 

sulphurdunn

(6,891 posts)
64. Tone conveys meaning.
Wed May 13, 2015, 05:05 PM
May 2015

Often, the meaning is the opposite of the spoken word. Tone should not be ignored or belittled.

Jackpine Radical

(45,274 posts)
66. "With all due respect, Bless your heart."
Wed May 13, 2015, 05:33 PM
May 2015

Not directed at you at all, just providing an example in validation or your comment.


Or, to cite another example--

Speaker A: "Two negatives make a positive, but two positives never make a negative."

Speaker B: ""Oh, yeah, riiiiiiight."

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
75. Or, ...
Wed May 13, 2015, 06:02 PM
May 2015

the non-racist ... "Fuck you, Mr. President, you piece of shit used-car salesman."

Oh, wait ...

 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
18. Good grief, we do not. He struck out in a moment of stress...uncalled for and unlike his usual
Wed May 13, 2015, 03:08 PM
May 2015

calm. He goofed. Sounded Paternalistic. Period, the end. How you claim to speak for Progressives is not rational, either.

 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
25. Obama or Sherrod?
Wed May 13, 2015, 03:15 PM
May 2015

Paternalistic would be Sherrod feeling the need to rescue Warren, who can handle herself just fine.

 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
43. It's my opinion, and last I heard those were allowed here. For myself, I no longer use the
Wed May 13, 2015, 03:55 PM
May 2015

pejorative letters BS, especially when talking about Bernie Sanders. Just a thought/opinion.

 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
40. Paternalism is not sexism...it's acting like a Parent. As I've stated...I don't think it was sexist
Wed May 13, 2015, 03:51 PM
May 2015

or racist. I would have used parentalism, but it's not a word.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
9. I was going to wait for a female to weigh in on that ...
Wed May 13, 2015, 03:04 PM
May 2015

BS from Brown.

Funny how the constant "rude", "talking down to" and "disrespectful tones" directed at this President is summarily dismissed as racist attacks by progressives; but, disagreement with Warren (hell, ... saying that "Warren is wrong&quot is hardily embraced as sexist by that same cohort.

I'm shock!

nashville_brook

(20,958 posts)
53. yes, actually. you don't punch down. you don't resort to marginalizing women by
Wed May 13, 2015, 04:14 PM
May 2015

deploying tired old stereotypes. the fact that he went there in a policy debate defies logic. shows that he's the one who is being carried away by his emotions.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
84. He was extremely condescending to a woman who is a US Senator and who as it happens, is RIGHT
Thu May 14, 2015, 02:14 AM
May 2015

about this.

Was it sexist, no, I don't see sexism or racism in every comment made.

But it WAS extremely condescending and to be completely frank, it was STUPID. How can he say with a straight face that she 'doesn't know what she is talking about' when HE is responsible for denying both the American people AND Congress from seeing this 'agreement' he 's been busy working on in secret with his Corporate buddies?

If she's wrong, as he claims, then LET US SEE IT and WE will determine whether or not she's right or wrong.

But I read the leaks, and that was enough for me to know HE IS WRONG.

I'm not a fan of 'just trust me' politics, sorry. I DO trust those who are not afraid to tell the truth. And she is telling the truth because WE have seen the leaks! He is also extremely condescending to the people who elected him. He does appear to think we are stupid.

In fact he has made comments such as 'it is complicated, the American people wouldn't understand it' in relation to the bailouts eg. I have news for him, I think HE didn't understand it or he would never had the gall to say that 'nothing illegal happened here, it was immoral but not illegal'

THAT tells me HE doesn't understand it. There is no doubt about the criminal activiity that led to the global crash orchestrated KNOWINGLY by those he claims were 'just immoral'. As if being immoral is okay too.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
85. Sexism is irrelevant. What is relevant is his approach to the people who
Thu May 14, 2015, 03:56 AM
May 2015

--busted ass to get him elected. Them he can condescend to--Repukes not so much.

nashville_brook

(20,958 posts)
47. he used classic sexist tactics to marginalizing speech as "emotional" and not "logical," while
Wed May 13, 2015, 04:00 PM
May 2015

at the same time using a belittling tone. this isn't that hard. i KNOW, though, that it's ideology for some that the president can do no wrong. well, he's human. he screwed up here.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
70. And amazingly ...
Wed May 13, 2015, 05:40 PM
May 2015

some are completely tone-deaf when the tone is directed towards this President.

Also amazing that economics would be the path way to a new cohort with misogynist awareness.

Go figure!

 

Romeo.lima333

(1,127 posts)
3. this paragraph
Wed May 13, 2015, 02:44 PM
May 2015

He’s a “community organizer” who promised to “put on his comfortable shoes” to march with unions on worker protections. Of course, he also downgraded that in his Yahoo interview to a less strenuous “stand with” unions. Sorry guys. These Nikes are comfortable, but they’re not that comfortable. That pinch you feel is the suffering of slave labor in Vietnam, and the loss jobs here at home.

 

Wellstone ruled

(34,661 posts)
4. Wow!! This has major
Wed May 13, 2015, 02:46 PM
May 2015

consequences for all of the Third Way dingdongs,who thought they could slam this TTPP up everyone's behind. Just imagine the the phone calls from Larry Sommers and Mr. Obama,Sorry old Pal,the dupes up on the Hill woke up and voted for something else. Yes!!!

nashville_brook

(20,958 posts)
5. the narrative changed so quickly yesterday you could feel the whoosh
Wed May 13, 2015, 02:53 PM
May 2015

no one expected it. i have to hand it to harry reid for calling this play.

 

Wellstone ruled

(34,661 posts)
13. Lot's of I.O.U.'s were called on this baby.
Wed May 13, 2015, 03:06 PM
May 2015

The downside of this Legislation is enormous for the workers of the U.S.. Reid knows what would happen to Vegas if this crap succeeded. The crying sounds were deafening yesterday coming out of the White House. Lovin it.

nashville_brook

(20,958 posts)
22. i'm actually surprised at the WH response to the vote
Wed May 13, 2015, 03:14 PM
May 2015

the whole thing is baffling -- it seems like they keep digging themselves further in a hole.

 

Wellstone ruled

(34,661 posts)
63. Appears the White House and the McTurtle
Wed May 13, 2015, 05:00 PM
May 2015

might have cut a deal to bring this POS back up for a vote again. Got a hunch we will see a Voice Vote and screw a Recorded Vote.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
29. They'll add a couple of sweetners and enough Dems will support it because of that.
Wed May 13, 2015, 03:21 PM
May 2015

The truth is -- despite all the public political displays and posturing -- most Congressfolks know we have to do stuff like this or the economy will stagnate for decades, or just flat tank.

Doing nothing, as folks like Senator Brown seem to support, will not put one new job in Ohio.


Edit -- Looks like sweetners have already been added --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026666906

The currency manipulation aspect would be a really good addition, if a workable proposal exists. That would actually produce substantial jobs here.

nashville_brook

(20,958 posts)
39. won't pass the house. it'll get out of the Senate, b/c that what the Senate does...
Wed May 13, 2015, 03:49 PM
May 2015

is make these kinds of deals. we haven't even begun to see the hell, fire and brimstone that's going to rain down when the bill reaches the House.

 

John Poet

(2,510 posts)
15. From what I've read,
Wed May 13, 2015, 03:07 PM
May 2015

the Senate is supposed to be the "easier part".

It's supposed to be in worse shape in the House.

 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
11. Absolutely. Paternalistic is the word for his unhinged and reactionary response to the push-back
Wed May 13, 2015, 03:05 PM
May 2015

to Warren. Under stress we all do things we shouldn't, but can't deny they are in there somewhere. My dad used to say, "If you don't have a goat to git, no one can git your goat."

And yes, the Warren/Sanders Wing of the Party is full steam ahead. That took some wings out of the proverbial sail.

nashville_brook

(20,958 posts)
49. i believe that wind is squarely at our backs now.
Wed May 13, 2015, 04:02 PM
May 2015

just a few months ago there was a virtual blackout of TPP on major news outlets. the more people know about it, the more they don't like it.

 

libdem4life

(13,877 posts)
51. Bernie flies in on the same wind because, as used to be said about Bill C, Bernie has a way of
Wed May 13, 2015, 04:09 PM
May 2015

'splaining things so people can really understand it. It's a gift.

BrotherIvan

(9,126 posts)
54. Hillary should run as Hillary
Wed May 13, 2015, 04:20 PM
May 2015

She should not try to sound like Elizabeth Warren or she will lose in a landslide.

Ford_Prefect

(7,873 posts)
60. It appears to be un-blocked ( or about to be). So much for our 15 minute revolution (MSM-wise).
Wed May 13, 2015, 04:41 PM
May 2015
Senate Reaches Deal on Trade (Updated)
By Steven Dennis
Posted at 2:50 p.m. today 5-13-15

Updated 3:17 p.m. | Senate leaders agreed to a deal to get President Barack Obama’s fast-track trade bill back on track Wednesday, with Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., offering separate votes first on two bills demanded by Democrats.

That includes the key customs bill with currency enforcement provisions opposed by the White House, as well as a trade preference bill aimed at helping developing countries. Both will face a 60-vote threshold, with votes planned for Thursday.


http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/senate-reaches-deal-on-trade/

still_one

(92,061 posts)
76. One has to wonder, except for those who were always against it, if those Democrats who voted to
Wed May 13, 2015, 06:24 PM
May 2015

block it for less than a day, and then voted today to proceed, if it was just a silly ass game so they could say they voted against fast track, to appeal to one group, and then say they voted for it to appeal to another group

Typical

zentrum

(9,865 posts)
72. I'm not so sure about this.
Wed May 13, 2015, 05:47 PM
May 2015

The Dinos and Neo-con Dems and Reps voted against it because they wanted to line up their ducks better before it went to a floor debate—so that when it does come up, it will really pass.

I don't think things are what we progressives hope. The Reps and corporate Dems do want the TPP even though they voted against it today. We may have won the news cycle optics but may still lose the war.

 

MaggieD

(7,393 posts)
73. Well if someone called "thefloridasqueeze" thinks so....
Wed May 13, 2015, 05:51 PM
May 2015

It must be true. LOL!

Most voters eyes glaze over on this stuff, and it sure won't be prominent a year from now.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
79. And 543,000 other news stories of course (LOL)
Wed May 13, 2015, 08:39 PM
May 2015

(0.38 second Google search of "TPP Warren Obama&quot

Seriously, "nothing to see here, move along?"

About the TPP fight.


Okay.

DirkGently

(12,151 posts)
78. I've never seen Obama like this.
Wed May 13, 2015, 07:03 PM
May 2015

The problem he's got in arguing for what he wants is exactly the problem with the TPP. He can't / won't say what's in it. Which is why it looks so strange trying to laugh off these very logical concerns, held by plenty of serious, well-informed people, as though they were inconceivable.

If he could explain why Stiglitz and Warren and Sherrod Brown shouldn't worry about what they're worried about, we might not be having the discussion at all, either because Obama and the Republicans are right and everything is reasonably fine, or because it never would have gotten out of the gate with what's in it had people known.

But recall, Warren says she was told the very reason the TPP was classified was because it would create a public outcry if the terms were known.

I thought Sherrod Brown's comments on Chris Hayes last night were great. He didn't want to dwell on his earlier comment that he thought Obama got too personal with Warren, and then he laid out examples of all the previous trade agreements, all of which were promised to add American jobs and did not.

So it's fairly obvious that Warren and everyone else are not being ridiculous or illogical, and it was a tone-deaf way for Obama to approach it.

Dismissal is just not a credible tone to take with something like this. Had Obama acknowledged the problems with past trade deals and the concerns with the details we know about this one, he would have sounded much more convinced of his own opinion than he did saying things like "it's not logical" and "Why would I do that?"

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Progressives just changed...